Fallout - The First Modern RPG @ Joystiq

It wasn't supposed to be Fallout. After the role-playing game genre crashed in 1995, new models for the style began to appear. Smart money would have been on the wildly popular Diablo to become the trendsetter, where Fallout was an underdog from the start. At the 2012 Game Developers Conference, Fallout's lead producer, Tim Cain, described its creation: he was the only Interplay employee assigned to the game for months, it was almost canceled twice, and when it shipped Cain was told it was a "risk" despite the low level of company investment.

Despite all that, the original Fallout has become widely known as one of the greatest and most influential games of all time, and the model for the biggest RPGs of recent years. Several weeks ago I argued that Ultima was the most important game series of all time, but Ultima's influence through new games was almost gone in 1997. Fallout was its replacement; it was the first modern role-playing game.

Sorry, but this article was written by somebody who doesn't know what they are talking about. For one thing, it was called the RPG drought not the RPG "crash" and it was not caused by whatever nonsense the author was babbling about. It was caused by companies that had been making RPGs deciding (after Myst came out) that they could make a lot more money with a lot less effort doing interactive slideshows for the mass market than they were making with RPGs. It began about 1993 in my opinion (not 1995) which was the year after what was probably the best year ever for RPGs (1992). I could go on for a long time because there's virtually nothing in that article that is correct except possibly Fallout being the first high quality RPG to be released since the drought began. But even that is largely a matter of semantics since Fallout 2, Baldur's Gate and Might & Magic 6 came out pretty much in the same batch. But, I won't. I'd have to write an entire counter article to correct everything the author got wrong and I'm not willing to do that. Instead, I'll just suggest next time Joystiq should get somebody who was playing RPGs all throughout the 1990s and whose memory isn't faulty to write such articles. This stuff isn't really up for debate, as it was debated at the time in numerous forums, including with the participation of some RPG developers who were pretty well known at the time.

Originally Posted by rossrjensen
I think you're nitpicking a little Craig. Does it really matter if he calls it a crash rather than a drought? Does the date the author believes it started really matter?

I'm not nitpicking. The whole article was wrong. The "crash" mistake was just the first one the author made, in the title

As for whether it's accurate or not, it was called "the RPG drought" by RPG fans at the time. So why is this individual referring to it as a "crash" now? That's a pretty big deal, isn't it? Seems like evidence the author is writing about something without any firsthand experience, doesn't it?

toknaz, I said it began in 1993. There were a few decent games came out in 1993, such as Betrayal at Krondor. However, Sirtech dumped Wizardry in 1992 with Wizardy VII and Origin dumped Ultima the same year with Ultima VII (addons and the crappy Ultiam 8 notwithstanding) and so on and so forth. As for your list, these arguments were all had before: at the time. Revisit usenet archibes, and see of you can find archives of the old Compuserve, Genie, AOL, etc forums if you want to see what people had to say about various pfffttttt that was being published between 1993 and 1999 if you're interested. I'm not. As bad as the RPG industry was in those years it is worse now.

By the way, tolknaz, Might & Magic III came out in 1991 and that's another major RPG franchise that didn't get any worthy update until 1998 with Might & Magic VI, regardless of what you'd like people to believe about the unworthy IV/V Xeen nonsense. And even if that wasn't true M&M IV came out in 1992 and M&M V came out in 1993, both withing my time frame (not 1995) and there was a 5 year break between the crappy M&M 5 and the good M&M 6.

What's a bit annoying about this article is that it uses one of his previous opinion pieces from the same column as the basis for his rant. He's referencing himself in a way that seems to established truth and not an opinion piece.